Revelers party in the street at a celebration for the U. S. Supreme Court’s rulings on Prop. 8 and DOMA in the Castro District in San Francisco, Calif. on Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (AP Photo/Mathew Sumner)

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Stan Sholar: Several lawyers’ descriptions of the rationale behind, and

Revelers party in the street at a celebration for the U. S. Supreme Court’s rulings on Prop. 8 and DOMA in the Castro District in San Francisco, Calif. on Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (AP Photo/Mathew Sumner)

net effects of, the Supreme Court’s Defense of Marriage Act ruling are confusing and contradictory [“Why DOMA went down,” Opinion, June 27]. Is it so difficult to summarize this close, 5-4 vote?

Perhaps this controversial subject is obfuscated by one’s own personal mores. This is reflected by some of the best legal minds from our UC system and think tanks. As expected, the Supreme Court’s majority and minority opinions reflected basic disagreements.

If just one justice among the majority of five had voted differently, these opinions would have swapped labels. As an example of contrary predictions of the effects, consider that of UCLA law professor Adam Winkler: “The majority went out of its way to limit the scope and reach of its decision, [resulting in few other laws] likely to fall because of it.”

Compare this to the opinion of Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine law school dean: “After today, it is clear that it is only a matter of time before marriage equality exists everywhere in the United States.” These outcomes are mutually exclusive. Disagreeing explanations are expressed by other lawyers in the opinion column roundup.

I found the most sense from Kevin Snider, chief counsel, Pacific Justice Institute, who said, “Federal law typically borrows the definition of [marriage from] the state of residence of someone seeking a federal benefit.” Justice Anthony Kennedy found that DOMA was an unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to interfere with a state’s prerogative regarding the definition of marriage.

Snider concludes, “In sum, the decision does not pave the way to require states to recognize homosexual matrimony. Quite the opposite is true.”

The ruling makes clear that states can individually determine what marriage is. Whether the scenarios predicted by Winkler or Chemerinsky will play out remains to be seen.

Voters have no standing

GARDEN GROVE, J. Henderson: Regarding your editorial “Prop. 8 ruling blow to direct democracy” [Opinion, June 27]: I couldn’t agree more. It is troubling when the will of the people has no standing in court if our governor and/or attorney general refuse to represent the people in court. It does open the door to our leaders picking and choosing which laws enacted by the people they will support. I feel like we lost an important freedom.

It should also be noted that President Barack Obama chose not to support DOMA, even though it was an enacted law. Apparently the president is free not to support duly enacted laws if he so chooses. No matter that this one was overturned.

At least the Supreme Court did not invalidate Prop. 8. That would be the final insult to state initiatives. Why pass them if they can so easily be invalidated? Do the people still have a vote?

Marriage vs. civil union

YORBA LINDA, Matt Kelley: California was the first state to enact a civil-union law (1999) – it was enacted by the state Legislature and never voted on by Californians.

In California, civil unions now are explicitly equal to a “married” relationship in terms of legal standing, rights and privileges. The re-definition of the word “marriage” in this state to include homosexual couples seems then to be an attack against traditional religious and societal values, since there is no status change legally between a “civil union” and a marriage.

Where is the tolerance, diversity and forbearance toward people with traditional religious values?

The danger within

ANAHEIM, Harald G. Martin: More than 200 years ago, when our fledging country was fighting for survival, Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Back then, the danger was from without, while today, the danger our country faces is from within. It is almost surreal to believe that my freedom as an American today is less secure than that of a Russian citizen circa 1950.

While the Russians depended on the KGB to chase their bogeymen, we use the National Security Agency, CIA, FBI, IRS and a handful of other government agencies to quash any thoughts of liberty for the sake of safety. This isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue.

Scandal after scandal proves we have a government gone wild, and all the time there are shadowy faces demanding more of our liberty to keep us safe.

Thomas Paine said, “It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government.” If you got up on a soap box in the middle of a park and said these words today, you would be labeled a “terrorist” and be in Guantanamo tomorrow.

On chasing Snowden

IRVINE, Neil Morchower: We now see the results of the “reset” button and President Barack Obama’s intention to improve our relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In spite of the quality time recently spent with both Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Putin, we can see no positive results in the case of getting accused traitor Edward Snowden returned to the U.S.

Most recently President Obama has said that he would not exercise his power and/or leverage to get Snowden returned, as if an American citizen, one who is an accused traitor, is of no importance [“Obama plays down Snowden case,” World, June 28].

Perilous persecution

NEWPORT BEACH, Vincent Sheehy: I read with great interest the columnist who advocated respectful dialogue with different faith communities [“Disrespect in the name of religion,” OC Family, June 25]. Most Americans agree with his comment.

Unfortunately, this same sentiment is not shared by a few nations in the Middle East, e.g., Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and also China, North Korea, Vietnam and Nigeria, where many Christians are violently persecuted for their faith.

No one should ever be a victim of violent persecution because of personal faith.

Our nation should be using all its political influence to pressure these other nations into respecting all religions as we do in the United States.

Hikers not to blame

TRABUCO CANYON, Ric Mireles Heard: The Orange County Fire Authority and a reserve deputy injured during the rescue are seeking restitution from one of the lost hikers because the hiker used drugs [“OCFA wants hiker to pay,” Local, June 28]. However, are there ever any boating or wilderness rescues where the rescued party is not in some way culpable? Consider driving too fast around a mountain curve, drinking while boating, failure to maintain equipment resulting in breakdown, failure to check maps or weather conditions before setting out, etc.

The lost hikers did not tell the injured rescuer where to put his foot, nor did they push him over the cliff.

Maybe the hikers should sue the O.C. Fire Authority for an incompetent search, since it was friends and acquaintances, not official searchers, who finally found the hikers, not far from their car.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.